Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5 11 12 13 14 15
Results 281 to 300 of 300
  1. #281
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,152
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    AWESOME JOB COMPRESSING THE DEBATE!


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am not arguing that dems will in actuality NEVER fund the wall.
    I am just forwarding that their current position is that they will never fund the wall.
    And I'm saying that you have not supported that that is there current position. You have not shown that Pelosi meant that she would never, in future negotiations, agree to fund the wall or that her current position is indeed what the Democratic position is. Even if she personally has no intention of funding the wall, that does not mean that the Democratic party has taken that position or that she can force them to take that position if that majority of them decide to agree to fund the wall.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What does this "No" mean? Does it mean No until we get what we want?
    Is it "no until the shut down ends", no because Pelosi spoke that she is interested in "boarder security" not the wall after the shut down
    Well, I agree that she doesn't want the wall ever. But that is quite different than taking the position that no matter what, no wall money will be given. Obviously when one negotiates, they will have to give something that they don't want to give.

    I mean it's safe to say that NO Democrats want to provide wall money. And yet a Wall for Daca deal has been floated which shows that some Democrats are willing to provide wall money even if they don't want the wall.

    Doesn't want to give wall money =/= will not negotiate for wall money

    Really,your argument is stating one of the conditions of future Democratic negotiations before the negotiations have even started. There is NO WAY that you could know that when future negotiations start, the Democrats will refuse to give wall money no matter what is offered in exchange or that this strict condition is the current Democratic position.

    So again, I take the position that the Democrats will be open to negotiate for wall money once the shut down ends.

    That is my interpretation and it is no less supported than your interpretation.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The biggest reason for it not being limited to the shut down, is because after the shut down the president will have very little actual power to push the discussion.
    I disagree. I can think of things the President can do to push the discussion. But if I were to argue for those things, then you could challenge them and the burden would be on me when if should be on you here (since this is your argument).

    So instead I will ask that you support that assertion. And I will ignore this point until I see support for it.

    I hope that doesn't sound snotty - that not my intent. I just think this point is not so important so I'd rather ignore it which is why I'm using this tactic here.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So what you have as my position, is really just a response to your claim that there is a limit.
    My argument is made up of what she said, how people are taking it, and more general circumstances around the debate.
    Not only is there no limiting principles in the statements, they are presented in an uncompromising way. And in their other speaking there is a general aversion to anything trump wall related. (like link 1, where she shuffles around even a fence).
    But you only get to your conclusion by rather subjective interpretations.

    None of that equates as anything close to proof that the Dems currently do not intend to allow wall money in future negotiations.

    A statement that does not have limiting principles does not mean that there are no limits. Again, if an election is coming up and someone asks me if I am voting Republican and I say "no", that is a statement with no limiting principles. But that does not make it an absolutist statement that communicates that I will never vote for a Republican in any future elections.

    And again, a unified aversion to wall money does not equate an absolute unwillingness to negotiate for it (as addressed above).

    So again, this is just your interpretation. I have a different interpretation. They are equally supported (as in not supported at all).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What is not supported is your interjections. Like your assumption that they are standing on the "he shouldn't shut the gov down" as a basis for their wall money refusal.
    Doesn't matter. I am not saying that my interpretation is supported. I am saying that neither of our interpretations are supported.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Finally, it is their language about future negotiations that really is the most convincing. They will say they don't want to negotiate "boarder security" until after the shut down. So they are showing zero intention of negotiating the wall.
    I don't agree with your interpretation. The wall is part of "border security" and therefore they are referring to the wall. It's like if you say you are taking your children out for ice cream but did't say "Lisa" by name, it does not mean that you aren't taking Lisa out for ice cream.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    - Shut down negative effects -
    In regards to the pain of those in various gov jobs. Your points are all right. I mean it would be better for them if it was all well planned reduction of the gov.
    At this point, I'm just a little hostile to the gov in general, and that means government workers. I mean, I know the gov isn't going to shrink. No one is going to make the gov smaller.
    The government is not going to shrink due to the Shut Down either. Eventually, it will re-open and considering the harm that is being caused by each day the government shuts down, it should re-open ASAP.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes, the great lettuce menace should run rampant until we get a wall.
    Sorry, I'm laughing a little at the idea that lettuce is the major concern in our nation.
    It's not lettuce that's a concern. It's food safety in general. Lettuce is just one of the foods that is most likely to have e coli so it's a good example.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    By showing that they supported walls on the souther boarder in the past (support below), I show that they are not standing on a consistent principle of the past.
    That depends on what the principle in question is. I mean if the Democrats oppose Trump on the principle of "We don't want any walls ever", then I would agree that they were violating their principle when they supported a wall in the past.

    But then I don't think that's the principle that they are using here so it can't be said that they are violating a previous principle because they didn't abide by the "We don't want any walls ever" principle.

    So to make your argument, you need to first identify the principle(s) being used here and show that they would also apply to the previous wall.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I can't take serious the distinction between a fence and concrete wall as being relevant in any moral context.
    When both keep people out.. or are intended too. It appears to be a bit of mental gymnasitics to make such a distinction.

    Your just adding distinctions where they are not stating any.
    No. I've never equivocated "wall vs. fence" in this debate and don't intend to do so now or in the future. Maybe you're thinking about someone else here?



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have to say this is annoying, that you constantly demand higher and higher levels of support for claims that.. if your kinda paying attention to the goings on, are not really controversial.
    My standard for support has always been the same. Credible sources. Opposition party assessments of the other party is not a credible source for the other party's attitude or positions. That article is an editorial by a conservative and was based on an interview with a Democratic Representative and NOWHERE in the article did the writer quote her as saying the wall is racist. She said something about "hateful rhetoric" and he apparently (and probably disengenously) interpreted that as admitting that they as a group claim the wall is racist. So it looks to me that the writer's assessment is based on partisan hackery rather than anything that would resemble support at ODN.

    If I were to find an editorial from a liberal that says that Republicans are racist, would you accept that as support that Republicans are racist? Assuming the answer is "no" (and I have to imagine that it is), you should not demand that I accept Conservative Editorials or statements from the opposition party as valid support on what the Democrats do or think. So unless you will accept whatever a liberal opinion write might write about the Republican party is support about the Republican party, you must agree that it's reasonable for me to reject that type of support when offered from you.

    Now, I do acknowledge that SOME Democrats have called the wall racist. THAT, as you said, is not controversial. But that does not mean that that is a general Democratic principle, just like Steve King's controversial statements cannot be considered stated Principles of the Republican party.

    I do assume that a "Democratic Principle" is a principle that the Democrats unanimously (or close to unanimously) agree with, right? So I do not consider rhetoric espoused by what, as far as I know, is a minority of Democrats to be something that can be considered a Democratic principle.
    Last edited by mican333; January 18th, 2019 at 07:31 AM.

  2. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  3. #282
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,293
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    How has my tune changed? I said I was o.k. with the shutdown under Obama, and I am saying I am fine with the shut down now.
    Then perhaps I doin' understand what a "level of opposition" is for you. Shutting down the government is generally about as opposite as it gets short of succeeding from the government or some act of violence.

    As much as you say, "why don't they let him have it?" there is an equal part of "Why won't he let it go?" It takes two to tango and neither of them have put forward a real compromise that I've seen.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #283
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    Well, you answered kind of, but I sense we might be getting a bit closer.

    Can we agree that spending is an issue as well, not just how much the gov't collects in taxes?
    Sure, I'll even break it down into two categories:

    1) Where we spend too much: Not allowing the government to negotiate (and therefore lower) drug prices under Medicare Part D.

    2) Where we spend foolishly(-ish): Forcing the Post Office to fully fund their benefit liabilities out 75 years. (I say -ish because it is actually a clever, if devious, plan to hamstring an otherwise excellent government function)

    ---------- Post added at 02:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Clearly you do not, or tell me, what are my thoughts on the first part of your post I am waiting to respond to
    Probably something along the line of "but the private sector can do it better" or some variant.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  5. #284
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,832
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    @ sig. I understand your confusion. I am not always as clear as I intend. The level of opposition I am referring to is the object being fought over. So, like I expect opposition .say if any president wanted to change 100% of the budget. Man would we see opposition. Or like in the case of Obama shutdown... That was over 1/3 of the economy. So again Understandable. But this is closer to changing the image of a stamp, then any of that. So... That is what I am talking about. And you are absolutely right it takes two to tango here.
    And that is where Dem hypocricy matters.
    For example they apparently offered him 50billion for the wall a while back, in exchange for all sorts of stuff. He wanted something else and it didn't happen. Now he asks for 5billion... And the Dems say it is immoral.

    That would be like if you and I were married, and you agreed to building a house together and you gave me a budget of 5k if and only if you got to pick the paint in the house. I said no.. the. Changed my mind and said. Let me spend 50 on the fence and you can pick the paint and have that new car you always wanted..
    And you said no way, your immoral for wanting a fence I ain't giving you a single dollar.

    That isn't reasonable negotiation that is filibustering obstruction level.

    So is say it isn't healthy for the nation to have that level of opposition. Where the closer one side (Trump) gets the further the other side moves(Dems)
    To serve man.

  6. #285
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    751
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Sure, I'll even break it down into two categories:

    AWESOME!

    I feel we are making progress toward understanding each others position and they don't seem so far apart we can not agree on some things.

    If Nancy and the Donald had as much character perhaps they could come to an agreement as well.
    (Sorry, wrong thread for that)

    ---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    2) Where we spend foolishly(-ish): Forcing the Post Office to fully fund their benefit liabilities out 75 years. (I say -ish because it is actually a clever, if devious, plan to hamstring an otherwise excellent government function)[COLOR="Silver"]
    This is the rub for the "three things gov does well".

    I have worked as a city and state employee. I have worked in a union shop at one of the largest grocery chains in the US and worked at a locally owned very small business.

    Once it is a gov't agency people are like "spend what is left of the budget or lose it", "who cares, it's gov't money", "good enough for gov't work" type of thinking. Please don't get caught up in the examples, the point I am making is, peoples attitudes are different in private and public jobs.
    Add to that, once anything is a federal agency, politics can always play a role which is rarely a good thing....


    Please define the fallowing:

    1. Conservatism
    2. Fascism
    3. Liberalism

    I think we look at these with different definitions...?
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 18th, 2019 at 06:59 PM.

  7. #286
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    Once it is a gov't agency people are like "spend what is left of the budget or lose it", "who cares, it's gov't money", "good enough for gov't work" type of thinking. Please don't get caught up in the examples, the point I am making is, peoples attitudes are different in private and public jobs.
    Add to that, once anything is a federal agency, politics can always play a role which is rarely a good thing....
    People's attitudes are different in all types of jobs. That's just a hasty generalization.

    "Probably something along the line of "but the private sector can do it better" or some variant." So I was right!


    ---------- Post added at 11:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post


    Please define the fallowing:

    1. Conservatism
    2. Fascism
    3. Liberalism

    I think we look at these with different definitions...?
    Why don't you go first and we'll see if I agree.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #287
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    751
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    People's attitudes are different in all types of jobs. That's just a hasty generalization.
    Individually sure, but work in gov't a while and you will see the "we have to spend our whole budget before X or we will lose the money or our budget may just be cut" type of thinking. There is little incentive to try to contain costs. I am certainly not saying the private sector is without issues as well.

    ---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    "Probably something along the line of "but the private sector can do it better" or some variant." So I was right!
    My bad, I didn't mean the first part of your post, I was thinking about this quote when I said that:
    "That you take that stance on that issue tells us everything anyone needs to know about your views, and yes, you would've been a Tory. I'd suggest a re-reading (if you've ever read it) of the DOI (not the surface quotes). No, definitions weren't changed for PC reasons, rights were expanded to included those who had been previously denied. It's obvious you would have been against integration also."

    I was trying to comment that you know what I will say on a given subject based that issue.

    To the question of is gov't or the private sector better at a given task? I think it varies with the task in question.

    ---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Yes, the liberal/progressive march through history is sometimes uncomfortable and may, at times, seem like it is going to far. I was recently chastised at work for using the word "slut" in an example. ME! In a totally harmless analogy with no intent to harm. I also self-identify with the term "queer" and have been called out for that.
    Agreed, this is one of my main issues with PC. Somebody can take offense at almost anything if they want to.

    Funny as hell when you say "ME!"

    Welcome to my world...(laughs hysterically)

    ---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Why don't you go first and we'll see if I agree.
    Ok, I will give you my condensed and perhaps moderately humorous take (nothing in any particular order of importance):

    Conservative- believes in personal liberty, free speech, and property rights; personal responsibility; the constitution is not "alive", if some part of it no longer serves us well, change it, do not reinterpret it; gov't is necessary but needs to be of the people, by the people and for the people; gov't is not and should not try be the answer for every issue people forward; gov't power should be divided as power corrupts; gov't authority needs to be limited; a free market; PC is not a great thing.

    Fascist- individualism is second to the state; no free speech; the state is responsible for pretty much everything/aspect of daily life; no limits to gov't authority; no free markets

    Liberalism- free speech is limited by PC; believes how one feels has baring on a given decision; intentions matter! even if the result was not intended/positive; PC is a great thing; gov't is the answer to most of life's problems; open mindedness is a great thing (when people agree with your position) but "conservative" ideas need to be stifled; heavily regulated everything; more gov't will make it better; generally skeptical about free markets.

    ---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Sometimes it seems a bit silly, and yes, hurts at times, and yes, isn't perfect, but is what comes from living in reality as opposed to the perfect bubble you believe you live in with your infallible king and your complete knowledge book from the guy who lives in the clouds where you deny you need any "village".
    BTW, I have mentioned this several times but guess you have missed it, so allow me to make a point:

    I don't like the Donald ( I can only assume that is the "king" you refer to) and I am waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

    AGNOSTC!

    Squatch and I have a many month argument about this so I would appreciate you at least understanding I have no "your complete knowledge book from the guy who lives in the clouds". This comes back to you think you "know what I think" based on one answer. Please show me that "liberal open mind" and charity, that unless I totally contradict myself, maybe I actually mean what I say (IOW, give me the benefit of the doubt till I prove otherwise, less you commit a hasty generalization).

    ---------- Post added at 06:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I was recently chastised at work for using the word "slut" in an example. ME! In a totally harmless analogy with no intent to harm. I also self-identify with the term "queer" and have been called out for that. Sometimes it seems a bit silly, and yes, hurts at times, and yes, isn't perfect,...
    I just now told my girlfriend your story....

    She says you are a victim! You were only expressing comments about yourself! Who are these "straight" (I assume?) people you work for that would chastise this! What happened to free speech?
    Now no free speech about one's self?!

    (this sounds suspiciously fascist???)

  9. #288
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Individually sure, but work in gov't a while and you will see the "we have to spend our whole budget before X or we will lose the money or our budget may just be cut" type of thinking.
    That happens in both public and private sectors.

    ---------- Post added at 01:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    Ok, I will give you my condensed and perhaps moderately humorous take (nothing in any particular order of importance):

    Conservative- believes in personal liberty, free speech, and property rights; personal responsibility; the constitution is not "alive", if some part of it no longer serves us well, change it, do not reinterpret it; gov't is necessary but needs to be of the people, by the people and for the people; gov't is not and should not try be the answer for every issue people forward; gov't power should be divided as power corrupts; gov't authority needs to be limited; a free market; PC is not a great thing.

    Fascist- individualism is second to the state; no free speech; the state is responsible for pretty much everything/aspect of daily life; no limits to gov't authority; no free markets

    Liberalism- free speech is limited by PC; believes how one feels has baring on a given decision; intentions matter! even if the result was not intended/positive; PC is a great thing; gov't is the answer to most of life's problems; open mindedness is a great thing (when people agree with your position) but "conservative" ideas need to be stifled; heavily regulated everything; more gov't will make it better; generally skeptical about free markets.
    You're truncated definition of fascism is telling.

    What do you mean by "reinterpret it"? Do you have an example?

    How do you define a free market?

    ---------- Post added at 01:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:21 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    (this sounds suspiciously fascist???)
    I said it happened at work, so yes, many elements of fascism exist in the workplace. Private companies, in particular, are authoritarian pretty much by definition. Probably the closest thing you can get to being a king or aristocrat in modern society.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #289
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    751
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You're truncated definition of fascism is telling.

    And you asked me to go "first" which implies yo will answer as well.
    So,
    What is this "telling"?
    What did I leave out?


    Are you going to tell me what those three terms mean to you?
    Not the Webster's version, I am interested what those terms mean to you personally.
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 20th, 2019 at 11:16 AM.

  11. #290
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,832
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And I'm saying that you have not supported that that is there current position. You have not shown that Pelosi meant that she would never, in future negotiations, agree to fund the wall or that her current position is indeed what the Democratic position is. Even if she personally has no intention of funding the wall, that does not mean that the Democratic party has taken that position or that she can force them to take that position if that majority of them decide to agree to fund the wall.
    Support is evidence that would justify a belief. I have shown what she has said, pointed out the contexts and wordplay implications (like boarder security vs wall funding) and I have shown where many people(not necissarily from the right) have understood that to be exactly as I have claimed.
    The idea that I haven't supported the claim is flatly rejected, and I will not entertain this ridiculous claim.

    I think what you are confusing is I haven't convinced you, with I haven't supported it. And you have given some reasons why you are not convinced, namely some different assumptions, like the limiting principle of the shutdown.
    That objection I have addressed, and that is further "support" for my side, as it elliminates alternate reasons.

    That is not to say that you have not supported your position of those assumptions. You have taken the position that if two meanings can be reasonably taken from a statement then neither is "supported". I disagree with this, and hold that both are simply equally supported... but both have "support".

    -Democratic position and future vs Pelosi personally-
    Well Pelosi is in leadership position, and she has a lot of control over what happens in negotiations. For example, when trump invited everyone else(other dems) to "negotiate" no one showed up. They didn't show up because they didn't want to contradict leadership, or even be seen as being devided from leadership.
    Also, the leader has a lot of control on what reaches the floor to be voted on (as I understand it). so, I think you are simply underestimated the control leadership has over the party. Especially in this case where it isn't a figurative leader.. like Berny sanders is a "leader" in a communist revolution (or some such).
    No Pelosi has actual powers over the agenda and what comes to the floor, and actual pressure she can exert on her party.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Well, I agree that she doesn't want the wall ever.
    That is all I am saying... at all. That's it. The end.
    I know negotiations in the future will change things, and I am pretty sure on day 1000 the dems will give trump eleventy billion dollars to build the wall.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Doesn't want to give wall money =/= will not negotiate for wall money
    Which is not a position I hold. I am only arguing where they are at right now, at this moment in the negotiations. Which is a no with no stated exceptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Really,your argument is stating one of the conditions of future Democratic negotiations before the negotiations have even started. There is NO WAY that you could know that when future negotiations start, the Democrats will refuse to give wall money no matter what is offered in exchange or that this strict condition is the current Democratic position.
    No, not the future conditions, they are involved in negotiations now. Even if that involvment is a refusal.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So again, I take the position that the Democrats will be open to negotiate for wall money once the shut down ends.

    That is my interpretation and it is no less supported than your interpretation.
    Sure I see why you would hold that position, and I think in the future they could give money for the wall.
    I don't think they do it once the shut down ends, because I don't see any power for the president to press the issue again.
    There is a such thing as "lame duck".
    If I had to predect the futre. I would say that the dems if they get a total cave by trump on the shutdown, will not fund any new wall anything. Because they see it as
    a campaign promise they can deny the president of fulfilling. Nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I disagree. I can think of things the President can do to push the discussion. But if I were to argue for those things, then you could challenge them and the burden would be on me when if should be on you here (since this is your argument).

    So instead I will ask that you support that assertion. And I will ignore this point until I see support for it.

    I hope that doesn't sound snotty - that not my intent. I just think this point is not so important so I'd rather ignore it which is why I'm using this tactic here.
    Thanks for that.
    Admittedly, this point is a kind of argument from ignorance on my part. I simply don't know what the president can do. I mean, all he can do is threatend to Veto stuff, and no veto is going to have more power than one that shuts down the gov.
    What is he going to do, threatedn to veto some other bill related to something else, that shuts it down?
    I know you have no burden, but if you can truly think of some things, I would take brain storming as a counter to this point.
    As I see it, his "best" chance is past or passing. Which means whatever he can do in the future will be less pressure than right now.

    If by pushing the descussion you are talking about like trump speaking to the people, or campaigning. I don't think that should count as pushing the discussion in congress, as they can ignore it.

    --Danger and damage
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The government is not going to shrink due to the Shut Down either. Eventually, it will re-open and considering the harm that is being caused by each day the government shuts down, it should re-open ASAP.
    Sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It's not lettuce that's a concern. It's food safety in general. Lettuce is just one of the foods that is most likely to have e coli so it's a good example.
    For the most part, I don't believe we need the gov to protect us from food, or it isn't a super major concern that only the gov can accomplish effectivly.
    So I don't feel any pressure from this at all.


    --Principles
    [QUOTE=MICAN] That depends on what the principle in question is. I mean if the Democrats oppose Trump on the principle of "We don't want any walls ever", then I would agree that they were violating their principle when they supported a wall in the past.

    But then I don't think that's the principle that they are using here so it can't be said that they are violating a previous principle because they didn't abide by the "We don't want any walls ever" principle.

    So to make your argument, you need to first identify the principle(s) being used here and show that they would also apply to the previous wall. [/QUOTE
    Well the principle is pretty clearly never trump. I can't say that they are contradicting that.
    It's just that principle is new and causing a shift on other pricniples without an actual reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No. I've never equivocated "wall vs. fence" in this debate and don't intend to do so now or in the future. Maybe you're thinking about someone else here?
    No that was a referance to the dems, and past support vs current non-support on moral grounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Now, I do acknowledge that SOME Democrats have called the wall racist. THAT, as you said, is not controversial. But that does not mean that that is a general Democratic principle, just like Steve King's controversial statements cannot be considered stated Principles of the Republican party.
    All I can do is note that earlier in the thread, you quoted random democrats to support that they would negotiate.
    Then when I quote random dems to show a principle they are appealing to, you reject it.
    Also, Steven king isn't elected. I quoted elected officials. It seems to me you just want support that sort of spells it out, instead of understanding the context that it all happens under. Like dems haven't for years called republicans racist, and now it has to be newly established that, that is indeed what they are insinuating.

    I can't hit moving targets.

    What I have shown is
    1) The dem leadership has called the wall immoral.
    2) The most clear rhetoric that would lead to that assertion is the rhetoric from the party in general that the wall is "racist".

    No, that isn't as clear as a stated platform change. But it is support.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If I were to find an editorial from a liberal that says that Republicans are racist, would you accept that as support that Republicans are racist?
    False analogy.
    My original support was the opposition party identifying the major objection to their position.
    Namely, we can't get anything done as long as they keep calling us racist.

    So, this is at the very least how the opposition PERCEIVES the argument being offered. This is important.
    Especially because THERE ARE ACTUAL DEMS SAYING THAT, and insinuating it.
    Like that guy who pointed out republicans don't want a wall with canada, because that place is full of white people.
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/39594...g-hank-berrien

    And it isn't like the dem leadership is clearing that up. No dem is going to be caught dead saying "man, we aren't saying your racist, we are just saying X".

    I mean, are you seriously going to say that dems calling Rep racist is not a major democratic tactic? I can't walk out the door without tripping over a race card some democrat dropped as they drove down the street dropping democratic talking points.
    To serve man.

  12. #291
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    And you asked me to go "first" which implies yo will answer as well.
    So,
    What is this "telling"?
    What did I leave out?
    That you only focused on the "socialism" part. It's not surprising as that's how talk radio teaches it. You left out the more important part, however, authoritarian ultra-nationalism.

    I said I'd see if I agree with you, I don't. Seems like you just threw up a bunch of red herrings.

    I can't help agree with this definition of conservatism from wiki: "Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, human imperfection, organic solidarity, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.[1] Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as monarchy, religion, parliamentary government, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity.[2] The more extreme elements—reactionaries—oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were""
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  13. #292
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,152
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Support is evidence that would justify a belief.
    Justify it to who though? Not to yourself for pretty much everyone who debates a point thinks that their position is justified and therefore an argument would be considered supported by just being sincerely presented.

    If you mean justify it to others (as in people who don't automatically agree with you which would be about every debate opponent that one has), you need to demonstrate that your argument is likely correct through facts and/or logic. And since I have rebutted all of your arguments and showed how your position is not justified, I have shown that it's not supported.

    And I note that in this post you have not directly addressed my rebuttals.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have shown what she has said, pointed out the contexts and wordplay implications (like boarder security vs wall funding) and I have shown where many people(not necissarily from the right) have understood that to be exactly as I have claimed.
    Yes. You have made your arguments. And I have rebutted them all. You don't get to declare arguments that have been rebutted are supported without countering my rebuttals.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think what you are confusing is I haven't convinced you, with I haven't supported it. And you have given some reasons why you are not convinced, namely some different assumptions, like the limiting principle of the shutdown.
    Right. I assume one thing and you assume another. Since support cannot be based on assumptions, NEITHER of our interpretations of what was said qualify as support.

    Here is your argument (my best estimate of it anyway) laid out in a logic chain.

    1. Pelosi said that she absolutely refuses to give any wall money in the current negotiation
    2. Pelosi did not specifically say that her position in the current negotiation will not extend into all future negotiations
    3. Since she didn't say the current position doesn't extend into future negotiations, I assume it is an "absolutist" position that does extend into future negotiations.
    4. Therefore, Pelosi's position is no funding the wall EVER.

    And I'm pointing out that the logic chain fails because point 3 is invalid. It is based on an assumption and not fact or logic.

    And since my position is also based on an assumption, it's not supported either.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is not to say that you have not supported your position of those assumptions. You have taken the position that if two meanings can be reasonably taken from a statement then neither is "supported". I disagree with this, and hold that both are simply equally supported... but both have "support".
    Support cannot be based on assumptions. So they are equally supported in that they have the same amount of legitimate support for them. But that amount happens to fall short of what would qualify as support by ODN standards.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    -Democratic position and future vs Pelosi personally-
    Well Pelosi is in leadership position, and she has a lot of control over what happens in negotiations. For example, when trump invited everyone else(other dems) to "negotiate" no one showed up. They didn't show up because they didn't want to contradict leadership, or even be seen as being devided from leadership.
    Also, the leader has a lot of control on what reaches the floor to be voted on (as I understand it). so, I think you are simply underestimated the control leadership has over the party. Especially in this case where it isn't a figurative leader.. like Berny sanders is a "leader" in a communist revolution (or some such).
    No Pelosi has actual powers over the agenda and what comes to the floor, and actual pressure she can exert on her party.
    I consider this to be essentially a straw man argument as I never said anything that contradicted what you wrote.

    I didn't say that Pelosi does not have more power compared to the typical representative. I'm saying she doesn't have COMPLETE power over the rest of the Democrats. If the House wants to pass a bill that Pelosi doesn't want, they have the power to do that. In fact, since she is elected by the House, she has a lot of incentive to go along with what they want to do if a large number of them want to do something.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is all I am saying... at all. That's it. The end.
    Well, I said that Pelosi doesn't want the wall ever. I did not say that she has taken the position that she will never give any money for the wall ever so if all you are saying is the former, then we agree that it's not her position that she will not provide funding for the wall ever and therefore that is not her position?

    To be clear.

    Doesn't want to give any money for the wall ever =/= Will not give any money for the wall ever.

    I agree that the first position does belong to the Democrats but the send position does not belong to them.

    If you agree, then this particular point is settled.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Which is not a position I hold. I am only arguing where they are at right now, at this moment in the negotiations. Which is a no with no stated exceptions.
    Well, earlier you said the Democratic position was "No wall EVER" which means that they will never, now or in the future, agree to wall funding so Trump needs to stick to his guns now because this is his only chance to negotiate for the wall since he will be met with a blanket refusal to fund the wall in all future negotiations.

    If I have your argument wrong or you are retracting it, let me know.

    And whether I have it wrong or right, do you agree that the Democrats might be willing to negotiate for wall funding (like the DACA deal) in future negotiations and therefore Trump can negotiate for the wall after he ends the shutdown? Again, I thought that was pretty much your argument which is why you were trying to support that Pelosi would never fund the wall and would never let the house fund the wall.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Sure I see why you would hold that position, and I think in the future they could give money for the wall.
    I don't think they do it once the shut down ends, because I don't see any power for the president to press the issue again.
    All he needs to do is offer the Dems something that they want for the wall. Again, they seem receptive to the DACA for Wall deal so by offering that and perhaps else a bit more, he can get wall funding.

    And it's clear right now that he doesn't have the power to get the wall funded. His current strategy is not working.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is a such thing as "lame duck".
    If I had to predect the futre. I would say that the dems if they get a total cave by trump on the shutdown, will not fund any new wall anything. Because they see it as
    a campaign promise they can deny the president of fulfilling. Nothing more.
    If that was the only consideration, you might be right. But again there are other considerations such as bargaining for things that they want, like DACA.

    And if the deal was sweet enough, in both what the Democrats get and also how much the wall is compromised (the wall seems to keep getting smaller as its negotiated), I can totally see the Democrats agreeing. For example, if there's an agreement that the wall will not be built on lands seized by eminent domain, that removes one of the objections that Dems have and likewise they can score political points that way. So as long it's wall enough for Trump to convince he base that he built a wall and it's compromised enough for the Dems to say that it's not the wall that they were originally objecting to, everyone can live with it.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Thanks for that.
    Admittedly, this point is a kind of argument from ignorance on my part. I simply don't know what the president can do. I mean, all he can do is threatend to Veto stuff, and no veto is going to have more power than one that shuts down the gov.
    What is he going to do, threatedn to veto some other bill related to something else, that shuts it down?
    I know you have no burden, but if you can truly think of some things, I would take brain storming as a counter to this point.
    As I see it, his "best" chance is past or passing. Which means whatever he can do in the future will be less pressure than right now.
    As I said already, he can offer something that Dems want in trade.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    For the most part, I don't believe we need the gov to protect us from food, or it isn't a super major concern that only the gov can accomplish effectivly.
    So I don't feel any pressure from this at all.
    We do need our food inspected so people don't get sick from tainted food. I hope that's not a debatable issue here.

    If you are arguing that there is a better way to ensure food safety from the private sector, that's another debate. But again, before we can even look into someone else doing it better, we do need to re-open the government before we can even attempt to make such a change.






    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No that was a referance to the dems, and past support vs current non-support on moral grounds.
    But again, you need to accurately identify the moral position in general before you can hold that it's not consistently being applied. Again, it's certainly not "we don't want any walls ever".




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    All I can do is note that earlier in the thread, you quoted random democrats to support that they would negotiate.
    Then when I quote random dems to show a principle they are appealing to, you reject it.
    No, I did not use the quotes of Democrats as support for a Democratic Principle. I used it to show that there is some willingness to negotiate, not to show a principle.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Also, Steven king isn't elected. I quoted elected officials. It seems to me you just want support that sort of spells it out, instead of understanding the context that it all happens under. Like dems haven't for years called republicans racist, and now it has to be newly established that, that is indeed what they are insinuating.
    Again, we are talking about what is a principle. Not everything that someone of a party says is automatically a principle. The principle of a party is something that one can assume that the ALL hold as a party principle. So basically everyone agrees and likewise admits that it's a principle.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I can't hit moving targets.
    Well, now I've made the target very clear (the bolded part above). You know what a principle is.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What I have shown is
    1) The dem leadership has called the wall immoral.
    2) The most clear rhetoric that would lead to that assertion is the rhetoric from the party in general that the wall is "racist".

    No, that isn't as clear as a stated platform change. But it is support.
    1. While I think it's accurate to say that that is a common enough belief to qualify as a "principle", a principle is a moral position of sorts and not an opinion on a specific thing like this particular wall. "Wall are immoral" would be a principle and I don't think that's the principle here. The principle regarding Trump's wall would be the one that explains why this particular wall is immoral.

    2. Again, it needs to be something that the Democrats uniformly and directly state as a party principle before it can be considered a party principle. So that falls short.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    False analogy.
    My original support was the opposition party identifying the major objection to their position.
    Namely, we can't get anything done as long as they keep calling us racist.
    And that works as long as one buys into their claim that the name-calling is so pervasive that it's causing a problem.

    Again, I give the Republican claim what the Democrats are doing with as much credibility as you likely give to Democratic claims about what the Republicans are doing.

    And it's not a false analogy. We either accept what members say about the other party as valid support (and therefore should accept a Democrat's claim that Republicans are racist) or we don't (and therefore reject the claim that Democrats are calling Republican racist to the extent that the Republicans claim they are). I am going with the latter.

    I don't accept that Republicans are racist just because a Democrat says so and I don't accept that Democrats are uniformly or constantly saying Republicans are racist just because a Republican says so.

    To accept one and not the other is engaging in an inconsistent standard so I reject them both for consistencies sak.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, this is at the very least how the opposition PERCEIVES the argument being offered. This is important.
    Especially because THERE ARE ACTUAL DEMS SAYING THAT, and insinuating it.
    I'm not interested in how the opposition party perceives. I'm interested in the reality of the claim. And what is claimed to be is not supported to be.

    Yes, SOME Democrats do call Republicans racist. And SOME Republicans are indeed racist.

    But we can't use that to support that Democrats or Republicans in general are like that or else we are engaging in the hasty generalization fallacy.

    And we can't take the word of the opposition party on the qualities of the other party as they have a strong incentive to paint the other party in a bad light and therefore not speak the clear truth.

    So all of this fails as support.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And it isn't like the dem leadership is clearing that up. No dem is going to be caught dead saying "man, we aren't saying your racist, we are just saying X".
    Clearing what up? Do they actually need to deny whatever dumb thing that is said about them? Addressing a criticism can put the focus on the criticism and then everyone is debating whether the criticism is true or not when it should be ignored. Ignoring unfair criticism is perfectly valid tactic.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I mean, are you seriously going to say that dems calling Rep racist is not a major democratic tactic? I can't walk out the door without tripping over a race card some democrat dropped as they drove down the street dropping democratic talking points.
    You must live in a weird place. I leave the house every day and have yet to see a card dropped off by a Democrat on my street.

    Obviously, you are engaging in hyperbole and therefore are not making a point that I can take seriously. So I reject that particular argument as being hyperbolic. If you have a point, you do need to clearly state it.

    And no, I don't think it's MAJOR tactic (which is not to say it never happens at all). I seldom see any Democrat directly call a Republican racist (with the exception of when it's clearly appropriate like with Steve King). We just had a major, major mid-term election and there was plenty of things said about opposing candidates. Who got called a "racist"? If it's that common, you should be able to find plenty of examples. And I'm not referring to leftist calling "racist" but actual party Democrats - people who either hold office or are in some way recognized as a party Democrat. If it's a common tactic of the party, then there should be plenty of examples of members of the party doing that.
    Last edited by mican333; Yesterday at 07:19 AM.

  14. #293
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    751
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That you only focused on the "socialism" part. It's not surprising as that's how talk radio teaches it. You left out the more important part, however, authoritarian ultra-nationalism.
    I do not listen to talk radio, nor watch Fox news, don't thump a bible, I'm not a republican, don't like monarchies and you continually assume I like/believe in these things is getting tiresome.

    ---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Seems like you just threw up a bunch of red herrings.
    I can't throw up a red herring if all I am doing is telling you what these words mean to me.

    I have no problem with adding "authoritarian ultra-nationalism." to the def of fascism. My comments didn't lean toward socialism.
    In fact, I don't really relate the two a whole bunch.

    ---------- Post added at 01:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I can't help agree with this definition of conservatism from wiki:
    IOW, no, you will not answer what these three words mean to you.

    Fair enough I guess (since you asked me to go first?) but not very informative. All I am trying to do is see how close we are to save time talking past each other and you seem evasive/defensive.
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 20th, 2019 at 06:39 PM.

  15. #294
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,293
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ sig. I understand your confusion. I am not always as clear as I intend. The level of opposition I am referring to is the object being fought over. So, like I expect opposition .say if any president wanted to change 100% of the budget. Man would we see opposition. Or like in the case of Obama shutdown... That was over 1/3 of the economy. So again Understandable. But this is closer to changing the image of a stamp, then any of that. So... That is what I am talking about. And you are absolutely right it takes two to tango here.
    I think likening it to an image on a stamp is not accurate. This is a dispute about the way the US manages its borders and the way we treat immigrants and refugees in the United States. That is a pretty important part of our foreign and domestic policy. I find the whole idea of it deeply contrary to my sense of patriotism for America and a lot of other people feel the same way. And Trump is a huge embarasment and a terrible administrator who has made a huge mess of immigration policy thus far. That's a lot different than an argument about the aestetics of a stamp.

    And that is where Dem hypocricy matters.
    For example they apparently offered him 50billion for the wall a while back, in exchange for all sorts of stuff. He wanted something else and it didn't happen. Now he asks for 5billion... And the Dems say it is immoral.
    Negotiating is not Hypocracy. I'm sure if Trump is willing to make dramatic immigration reform, they'd let him build the wall. But Trump's own base won't let that happen. Some have already started calling him a traitor to amnesty for his latest offer and its not enough to satisfy the democrats requests.

    That would be like if you and I were married, and you agreed to building a house together and you gave me a budget of 5k if and only if you got to pick the paint in the house. I said no.. the. Changed my mind and said. Let me spend 50 on the fence and you can pick the paint and have that new car you always wanted..
    And you said no way, your immoral for wanting a fence I ain't giving you a single dollar.
    I'm sorry but this argument strikes me as incoherant.

    Negotiatons are give and take. You need to offer something of pereived value equivalent to what you are asking. And the relative possitions of power matter as well. The democrates now have the House so it gives them more leverage than before. BTW: I'm also rather dubious about your 50billion for a wall claim, do you have a source for that?

    So is say it isn't healthy for the nation to have that level of opposition. Where the closer one side (Trump) gets the further the other side moves(Dems)
    Not really. Its whenever Trump tries to be moderate, the right wing pundatry throws a fit and he scrambles to the right to satisfy them, creating a showdown with the democrats. There have been bipartisan bills that everyone signed on for. They don't just oppose Trump because he's Trump, though they opppose him more strongly because he's Trump and Trump is a lying ass-hat.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. #295
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    751
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as monarchy.... parliamentary government,....
    These two types of gov't are at odd with each other BTW.

    ---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, human imperfection, organic solidarity, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.
    Some of this I can get down with, but WTH is "organic solidarity"?

    Nothing wrong with "authority" (think police).
    Some tradition is good, not to say all must endure.
    If you think humans are not "imperfect" we need a different thread to talk about it.
    "Property rights", yes!
    "Hierarchy" needs a bit more definition before I can comment.

  17. #296
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    IOW, no, you will not answer what these three words mean to you.

    Fair enough I guess (since you asked me to go first?) but not very informative. All I am trying to do is see how close we are to save time talking past each other and you seem evasive/defensive.
    Believe what you like. My original point is still valid.

    ---------- Post added at 03:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    These two types of gov't are at odd with each other BTW.
    How so? See Great Britain.

    ---------- Post added at 04:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    Some of this I can get down with, but WTH is "organic solidarity"?

    Nothing wrong with "authority" (think police).
    Some tradition is good, not to say all must endure.
    If you think humans are not "imperfect" we need a different thread to talk about it.
    "Property rights", yes!
    "Hierarchy" needs a bit more definition before I can comment.
    I think the mistake you're making and why I can't agree with you is dividing these into opposing absolutes, rather than how different sides view each element and to what degree.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #297
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    751
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Believe what you like. My original point is still valid
    You haven't said what fascism or liberalism means to you when you think of the words which is what I asked.

    And you only copied/pasted some one else's definition of conservatism which is exactly not what I asked.

    ---------- Post added at 08:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:59 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    How so? See Great Britain.[COLOR="Silver"]
    Are you suggesting royalty in the UK governs or are part of governing the UK?

    ---------- Post added at 08:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I think the mistake you're making and why I can't agree with you is dividing these into opposing absolutes, rather than how different sides view each element and to what degree.
    I really don't understand this comment at all...

    I am specifically asking "how different sides view each element and to what degree". In this case, your side, as in what do these three terms mean to you?
    Last edited by Belthazor; Yesterday at 06:47 PM.

  19. #298
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    Are you suggesting royalty in the UK governs or are part of governing the UK?
    Are you suggesting they don't?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  20. #299
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    751
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Why don't you go first and we'll see if I agree.
    I took this to mean you would answer after me but obviously this, for some reason. is a problem for you. If that is the case, I guess I will move on...

  21. #300
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I took this to mean you would answer after me but obviously this, for some reason. is a problem for you. If that is the case, I guess I will move on...
    I have been. Take my last answer in post 296 for example.

    You define things in sound bites. I get it, that works especially well for your base.

    Reality is that it is more nuanced than that.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5 11 12 13 14 15

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 26th, 2013, 11:18 PM
  2. Replies: 32
    Last Post: November 27th, 2012, 08:34 AM
  3. Mind Trapped in a dream #1
    By MindTrap028 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 13th, 2008, 01:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •